SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
When the church doors open, only white people will be allowed inside.
That’s the message the Asatru Folk Assembly in Murdock, Minnesota, is sending after being granted a conditional use permit to open a church there and practice its pre-Christian religion that originated in northern Europe.
Murdock council members said they do not support the church but were legally obligated to approve the permit, which they did in a 3-1 decision.
“We were highly advised by our attorney to pass this permit for legal reasons to protect the First Amendment rights," Mayor Craig Kavanagh said. "We knew that if this was going to be denied, we were going to have a legal battle on our hands that could be pretty expensive.”
City Attorney Don Wilcox said it came down to free speech and freedom of religion.
“I think there’s a great deal of sentiment in the town that they don’t want that group there," he said. "You can’t just bar people from practicing whatever religion they want or saying anything they want as long as it doesn’t incite violence.”
After permit approved for whites-only church, small Minnesota town insists it isn't racist
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 30 2020, @05:51AM (2 children)
This would almost have been persuasive, if only for a couple of problems:
First, Dworkin was very clear, and very consistent, about women being oppressed, as a class, period.
Not some women.
Not on the second Sunday after Lent.
Not only between the hours of 4 and 7, or south of 40th street.
Not only married women.
All the time.
This means that her postulated possibility of sex between equals remains, given her oft-repeated position, is at best a theoretical possibility, and more aptly a disingenuous deflection based on what she realised was robbing her of credibility.
She said then that sex shouldn't put women in a subordinated position - but her rhetoric about women's liberation was the rhetoric of revolution, not compromise, not even detente, and she repeatedly spoke about how men relate to sex as dominant predators and conquerors.
She didn't, even, point at a bunch of heterosexuals and say that they were doing it well, and others were doing it poorly. She made some handwaving references to lesbian sex, but her entire view of heterosexual sexuality appears to have been bound up in her abuse.
So while those quotes from interviews are all heart-warming, they're directly contradicted by her writings, and the interviewers were too clueless to demand a differentiation between practical facts and theoretical possibilities.
Case not proven. Next evidence? Title, edition and page.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 30 2020, @06:20AM (1 child)
Is that the best you could come up with after 4 days is to just reiterate the same points again? Points that she denied. Points you also later denied in your parent post as being hers either, interestingly enough. At this point, you do not seem honest. Short of a multivolume analysis, and maybe even then, I'd just point to another thing she wrote and you'll just reiterate those same misunderstandings of her corpus as contradicting them. The evidence stands on its own but feel free to chalk this up as a great moral victory against those evils you disagree with, since everyone else can see otherwise.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 31 2020, @07:06AM
Denials are cheap. The transcripts of the trials at Nuremberg are full of denials.
Dworkin never gave a coherent answer to how a woman, as an oppressed person, might give a man, as an oppressing person, meaningful, independently considered consent.
Or if she did, I've never seen it - and I looked for it. There are no Dworkinite Consent Processes. There is no Dworkin's Guide to Non-oppressive Intercourse.
She didn't even, that I saw, give any kind of verifiable checklist on how you might know that consent might have been theoretically freely given.
No, all we got from her was women are oppressed, men are the oppressors, and that's pretty much it. Denying after the fact that her writings lead to where they lead is about as convincing as Goering on the witness stand.